Evicted as landlord selling now up for rent

Pollygone

Hi all,

My landlord evicted us all from the property as she "intended to sell the property". She followed the correct procedure in terms of notice periods and sent us a print out letter from the prtb templates. This letter was sent prior to the new legislation whereby the landlord must provide a "statutory declaration" of intention to sell.
The property was never put up for sale and the landlord stated it was a private buyer. The property is now up for rent as the "buyer decided not to buy". Its a few weeks since we have moved out.
What are my rights? Does the landlord have to prove that she was intending to sell? Does she need proof of a buyer? We all suspect that this was all a lie to get us longterm tenants out and raise the rent. She has since stated that at some point she will probably have to "offer us the place back" and that I "wouldnt want it as it will be double the price".
I think she may follow protocol and offer the place back but the fact of the matter is:
1) we were evicted as the landlord was selling
2)the landlord is meant to sell within 3 months however is now starting to rent the property.
I am wondering if anyone can shed light on our rights? And or answer the following:
3) the buyer was private so how can I investigate if this was legitimate or not?
4) Is the landlord bound under new legislation? The letter was sent prior to new legislation in May so I understand she doesnt need to include the statutory declaration but does she still need to provide proof that she had the property up for sale?
5) If the place is offered back to us at double the rent and the new rental price is too expensive what happens then?


Thanks in advance for any help. We suspect the landlord was never selling and we know that the landlord started preparing the property for rental a few days after we left. Surely they cant do this?

garhjw

OP, I think the only option for you is to report the landlord if you think the eviction was not legitimate. I presume this would be through the PRTB.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Why do you believe the landlord wanted you out of his property? Generally landlords don't want to lose "good" tenants. You must have some idea?

Edit: to clarify what i meant. You said the landlord would double the rent. Are you paying half "market rent" at the moment?

Edups

Bronson Yummy Stabilizer wrote: »

Why do you believe the landlord wanted you out of his property? Generally landlords don't want to lose "good" tenants. You must have some idea?

OP has said their landlord has no less than doubled the rent... I would say that's the reason

Pollygone

Edups wrote: »

OP has said their landlord has no less than doubled the rent... I would say that's the reason

To double the rent..she can get significantly more rent now, double is an unbelievable increase!

Edups

Pollygone wrote: »

To double the rent..she can get significantly more rent now, double is an unbelievable increase!

Is the rent in line with similar size houses in the area? If not she's in breach of RTB fair rent rules.

Clampdown

File a complaint with the PRTB straight away, you can not do it online. If found in your favour they have to offer it back to you at the same rent.

It will also cost the LL 4 figures.

riclad

Simple, if a landlord gets a new tenant ,they can charge whatever rent they want, rents have nearly doubled in some area,s in the last 3 years .

Pollygone

Edups wrote: »

Is the rent in line with similar size houses in the area? If not she's in breach of RTB fair rent rules.

Sorry if this is a stupid question but how do I find that out? Have searched Daft, there is one property at that price but it's way higher than other similar properties in the area, so unsure how that works?

Pollygone

riclad wrote: »

Simple, if a landlord gets a new tenant ,they can charge whatever rent they want, rents have nearly doubled in some area,s in the last 3 years .

My issue is that the landlord said they were selling and we were evicted on that pretence. Now the landlord has not actually sold but is in fact renting for a higher rate. Therefore, the eviction seems like it was not legitimate.

Clampdown

riclad wrote: »

Simple, if a landlord gets a new tenant ,they can charge whatever rent they want, rents have nearly doubled in some area,s in the last 3 years .

God, why do so many people post in here that have no knowledge of property law!? You're just wasting everyone's time including your own and spreading misinformation.

It is completely illegal to evict a tenant under a false claim of selling the property, for the purpose of getting in new tenants at higher rent, there was legislation brought in to prevent this last January. If the landlord says they are selling they must do so within 3 months. I had a landlord pull this and he ended up having to pay me a significant sum via a PRTB judgement for an illegal eviction as he never put the house on the market 6 months later.

OP google the article about the legislation that was brought in and send it to your landlord, also go on the PRTB website and you can see all the judgements, find some relevant ones and send them on as well, make her realize she is going to get hit in the pocket if she is at this nonsense.

Edups

Pollygone wrote: »

Sorry if this is a stupid question but how do I find that out? Have searched Daft, there is one property at that price but it's way higher than other similar properties in the area, so unsure how that works?

There has to be 3 properties in the area and if she can't find 3 in your town she is allowed look in the towns surrounding. But if she can't find 3 she can't raise the rent higher than the other landlords.

davindub

Pollygone wrote: »

My issue is that the landlord said they were selling and we were evicted on that pretence. Now the landlord has not actually sold but is in fact renting for a higher rate. Therefore, the eviction seems like it was not legitimate.

The LL should have offered you first refusal at the same rent (providing a rent review has not been less than 2 years). Write a letter informing the LL of this, if not take a case with the RTB, they haven't a chance to defend their position.

Edups

Edups wrote: »

There has to be 3 properties in the area and if she can't find 3 in your town she is allowed look in the towns surrounding. But if she can't find 3 she can't raise the rent higher than the other landlords.

This only applies for a rent increase. If it's a new tenancy a LL can ask for what ever they want.

Edups

Weston Thousands Crossbar wrote: »

This only applies for a rent increase. If it's a new tenancy a LL can ask for what ever they want.

Wrong.

Under Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords cannot charge more than the open market rate of rent. Market rent is defined in Section 24 as ‘the rent which a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling’.

davo10

Edups wrote: »

Wrong.

Under Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords cannot charge more than the open market rate of rent. Market rent is defined in Section 24 as ‘the rent which a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling’.

I can only think that you are posting about the rent being increased for an existing tenant and applying it in this situation to the scenario whereby the op re-starts an existing tenancy by going back into the property rather than a new tenant moving in.

A LL can advertise for a new tenant at what ever rate they want, there is no restriction nor cap on the rate a LL can charge a new tenant. Nox is right, and it looks in this case as if that is what the LL wanted to happen.

Op, it does appear from what you are saying that the LL wanted you out but not necessarily to sell the property. You should contact the RTB, but there is a chance the LL will be able to provide some confirmation that a process to sell was begun and the buyer pulled out. If he/she offers you the property again then the LL has covered themselves, if you were to re-occupy, then you would go back to your original rent but if it hadn't been raised in the last two years, prepare for a massive increase, in line of course with market rate.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

I can only think that you are posting about the rent being increased for an existing tenant and applying it in this situation to the scenario whereby the op re-starts an existing tenancy by going back into the property rather than a new tenant moving in.

But in this case the important point is whether the tenant going "back in" after being kicked out for a sale that didn't happen constitutes a new tenancy or not.

I would say not, in which case the rules that apply to rent increases are those that govern existing tenancies.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

But in this case the important point is whether the tenant going "back in" after being kicked out for a sale that didn't happen constitutes a new tenancy or not.

I would say not, in which case the rules that apply to rent increases are those that govern existing tenancies.

Totally agree, sorry I was adding to my post while you posted. Op would be entitled to go back in at previous rent.

Michael D Not Higgins

The grounds for offering a tenancy after a notice of termination does not apply to selling the property. It only applies to family member use, renovation and change of use.

Even if it did apply, it is a new tenancy. The old tenancy is terminated when a valid notice of termination has been served and the tenants move out. Section 19 does allow for the rent not to be set above market rate for new tenancies but I'm not sure how the RTB would go about enforcing that. So it's a new tenancy with a new rent.

The only thing enforceable here is whether the notice was valid or not.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The grounds for offering a tenancy after a notice of termination does not apply to selling the property. It only applies to family member use, renovation and change of use.

Even if it did apply, it is a new tenancy. The old tenancy is terminated when a valid notice of termination has been served and the tenants move out. Section 19 does allow for the rent not to be set above market rate for new tenancies but I'm not sure how the RTB would go about enforcing that. So it's a new tenancy with a new rent.

The only thing enforceable here is whether the notice was valid or not.

Michael if the RTB ruled in favour of the op, the eviction/termination would be deemed invalid so would the original terms/rent not apply?

Where the eviction was valid and the RTB sided with the LL, presumably by the LL showing that a sale process was initiated, then a new tenancy would apply and the LL could advertise to the wider public at a higher rate. It would effectively be like any other add placed on daft looking for a tenant.

Pkiernan

Seems like an illegal eviction.
LL is subject to a 10k fine.
Report to RTB ASAP.

padd b1975

Clampdown wrote: »

File a complaint with the PRTB straight away, you can not do it online. If found in your favour they have to offer it back to you at the same rent.

It will also cost the LL 4 figures.

What rights do the current tenants have in these cases who have signed a lease in good faith?

Edups

padd b1975 wrote: »

What rights do the current tenants have in these cases who have signed a lease in good faith?

You need to be more specific? In cases like the OP, or the exact situation?

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Michael if the RTB ruled in favour of the op, the eviction/termination would be deemed invalid so would the original terms/rent not apply?

Where the eviction was valid and the RTB sided with the LL, presumably by the LL showing that a sale process was initiated, then a new tenancy would apply and the LL could advertise to the wider public at a higher rate. It would effectively be like any other add placed on daft looking for a tenant.

Yes, the only way the original terms would be applicable would be if the notice of termination was deemed invalid by the RTB.

padd b1975

Edups wrote: »

You need to be more specific? In cases like the OP, or the exact situation?

In cases where it was proven that the previous tenants had been illegally evicted and the landlord was obliged to offer the property to them again?

Do they also have a case against the landlord, or is it just tough luck?

It's an interesting one as surely if you terminate a tenancy to sell (when you intend selling) but then end up changing you mind and re-letting a few months later you cannot be slapped with a fine for illegal eviction. Surely it is only a genuine intention to sell that's required. I don't really see the point of the rule that it has to be offered back to the previous tenants though as its basically 0% chance they haven't found a new place and signed a lease so are never going to be able to take back the old place.

Not really saying this is the case in the op's situation but it raises the question.

Michael D Not Higgins

Weston Thousands Crossbar wrote: »

It's an interesting one as surely if you terminate a tenancy to sell (when you intend selling) but then end up changing you mind and re-letting a few months later you cannot be slapped with a fine for illegal eviction. Surely it is only a genuine intention to sell that's required. I don't really see the point of the rule that it has to be offered back to the previous tenants though as its basically 0% chance they haven't found a new place and signed a lease so are never going to be able to take back the old place.

Not really saying this is the case in the op's situation but it raises the question.

The law makers knew that too but it's intended to stop landlords using spurious reasons to get rid of tenants if they're forced to offer the property back to them again. Not that this stopped them since they had to change the RTA to included a statutory declaration with the notice as well.

Pollygone

Thanks for all the informative replies. I have since received a letter offering me my apartment back at an astranomical rate..the landlord may have realised the law regarding offering the tenancy back ( I can't actually prove that someone is in there renting right now if that makes sense but the place is up for rent..he has to offer it to me first before renting to anyone else apparently..which he will have covered now ). Obviously the rent is too high. The prtb state that it is a new tenancy, the landlord can charge what she likes. I'm thinking my own route now is trying to prove that it was never actually up for sale..do I have a case here/anyone have a sinilar experience. I jcannot believe that a landlord can pretend to sell and then re-let at double the rent without any consequence?

davindub

I'm not sure who you were speaking to in the PRTB, but a potential remedy if the LL failed to sell the property is an order to resume the tenancy. This means that a LL offering you 1st option because they failed to sell a property, should be offering you the same, else you take a case against them. Rent reviews minimum 24 months apart. Write to the LL stating this and inform him you are very likely to take a case with the PRTB at this stage, you feel that he has deprived you of your rights to tenure.

You can use my post below to refer to a high court case discussing "intends to sell" to add to your letter and application to PRTB for 25 euros, you really don't have a lot to lose. You actually don't need to prove someone else is renting there now, or that the property was for sale, the LL will need to prove that he had the intent to sell within 3 months and actually had a strong possibility of selling. He can't increase the rent because the sale fell through.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101678818#post101674674

pilly

Edups wrote: »

Wrong.

Under Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords cannot charge more than the open market rate of rent. Market rent is defined in Section 24 as ‘the rent which a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling’.

So market rent is whatever a LL can get basically. If the LL has the house up for rent at double what was being paid before and gets someone to take it then that's a market rent.

Anyway, getting back to the main point, it looks like this eviction was totally illegal and I would definitely recommend reporting them to PRTB but personally I wouldn't be looking to go back to the property as I wouldn't like to live somewhere that the LL didn't want me.